Unit 5 Current Events Post - The Battle Over Gun Policy

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/gun-control-status/index.html

Recently in Virginia, three different candidates who are pro tighter gun control laws all won their first rounds of elections.  The National Rifle Association is aghast that the state of Virginia would even consider electing anyone who wasn't a complete 2nd Amendment advocate.  This recent turn of events in VA made it more clear that the fight over policies concerning gun control has moved temporarily out of the national government's visibility and into the hands of state governments.

The battle over gun policy has seen quite a few shifts over the years, especially recently due to the different tragedies that this country has faced having to do with gun violence.  The NRA has had uber amounts of control for a long time, and it is a prime example of a specialized interest group with a clear mission and avid supporters, thus helping it to have an extreme amount of influence over public policy.  This organization has strong lobbyists and its opinion never goes unheard when a case of new gun control policy is circulating.

According to the article, the White House is planning to conduct new studies involving the connection between gun violence and mental health, which is something that will be funded largely by grants donated by the National Institute of Health, an agency that is under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  In addition, the House Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by the Republican Party, has vowed that it will stop at nothing to see this research thwarted.

As you can see, the influences on gun control policy are extremely abundant from many different sources.  Executive agencies, interest groups, and even Congress are trying what they can to support their cause, whether it be in conducting research, rousing awareness from the public, using media articles, or providing funding.

The chart above shows how the debate over gun policy has become closer and thus more prominent over the years.

Unit 4 Part 4 Current Events Post - The Supreme Court Says No

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/justices-decline-cases-on-gay-rights-and-campaign-finance.html?_r=0

Recently, the justices of the Supreme Court have denied hearing quite a few different cases, some of which involving gay rights, campaign finance, and lethal injections.  The gay rights case, Elane Photography v. Willock, has to do with a woman who has refused her photography services to gay and lesbian couples looking for a wedding photographer.  Though the Supreme Court said no to the case, Justice Bosson still wrote a letter stating his opinion on the matter.  The Supreme Court also declined to hear a case involving campaign finance; this case was compared to another extremely recent case, McCutcheon v. FEC.  Lastly, the Court chose not to hear two different cases involving lethal injections, both having to do with whether the inmate who is subject to the death penalty has the right to be made aware of what method will be used to end their lives.

According to the laws of the federal government's judicial branch, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear any case that is sent up to them through a cert petition.  It is okay--in fact, it is probably normal--for the many cases that make it through another round of appellate courts to not receive the writ of certiorari.  In the circumstance of the gay rights case, a Supreme Court justice sent his concurring opinion, which is something that may have helped to settle the issue.  The case dealing with campaign finance had a very closely related precedent in McCutcheon v. FEC, which could easily be the reason that the Supreme Court chose not to hear it.  Lastly, the cases involving lethal injections can be easily based upon a loose or strict constructionist viewpoint; these cases have to do with the Constitutional rights of the inmates in question, and those with conservative Constitutional views would have very different opinions than those with liberal views.  Like I previously stated, there are many different reasons for SCOTUS to refuse to hear any case.

Now, take a gander at the wrinkled but beautiful justices of the Supreme Court.

Unit 4 Part 3 Current Events Post - The Negative Side of Bureaucracy

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/26/bureaucracy/

This article points out pretty much every flaw you could possibly think of involving the federal bureaucracy in this country.  The author points out that leaders of organizations should be chosen based on their good qualities of leadership rather than their political knowledge.  His main point is that every single part of the bureaucracy slows down the process of implementation and action.  He sees each and every government organization under the bureaucracy as a hierarchy, where there are countless levels of management positions, and so it seems as though every manager has more managers to look to. He makes note of the barriers that stand in the way of taking risks or doing something new.  He is critical of everything that the federal bureaucracy entails, because he believes that the process of getting anything done is too slow and unsuccessful under the system our government currently has.

This photo (which was a comic shown in class a few days ago) pretty accurately shows the opinion of Gary Hamel, the author of the article; positions in an organization are like a hierarchy of "chairmen," a system that slows production and implementation.

 Gary Hamel was in a lot of ways correct about the many obstacles that have the ability to slow the federal bureaucracy.  Along with the issues pointed out in the article, there is red tape, or the forms and procedures required to receive bureaucratic approval.  Red tape is known to considerably hinder the approval process in every organization of the bureaucracy, including the departments in the Presidential Cabinet.  What Hamel fails to make note of are any suggestions concerning the restructuring or replacement of the bureaucracy.  Although the system can definitely be flawed, there are many things that have improved it to where it is today; for example, Clinton and Gore's National Performance Review made huge changes to the bureaucracy, making it run much more smoothly and cost less to the country.  Also, the organization of agencies into either the executive or regulatory category helps to keep the federal bureaucracy system in order.

 Author Gary Hamel is correct in comparing the federal bureaucracy to a maze, but he fails to recognize how difficult it would be to make the maze easier.  The only thing the government would be able to do to increase the simplicity of the maze would be to try and shift some walls.

Unit 4 Part 1 Current Events Post - Democrats in the House Debate Unemployment Benefits

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/12/democrats-try-to-increase-pressure-on-unemployment-benefits/

Within the past few days, Democratic members of the House of Representatives have brought more attention to unemployment benefits.  The original extension of these benefits expired about 3 months ago, and Democrats are arguing that we need to bring them back.  Nancy Pelosi argued her position on the issue, along with some other Democratic representatives, and they plan to file a discharge petition in the House in the hopes that this issue will be moved to a vote.  The petition would need an absolute majority, requiring at least 19 members of the Republican party to sign in favor of increased unemployment benefits.

It will be difficult for the minority party to gain enough support from the majority party in the House to move forward with their debate in favor of unemployment benefits.  Minority leader Nancy Pelosi is urging Speaker of the House John Boehner to get the Republican party to provide enough petition signatures to move this issue to a vote within the House.  The Democrats are mainly making arguments in this situation that will accuse the majority party of remaining inactive in an effort to increase the amount of marginal seats in the important upcoming midterm election.  Democrats have used visuals in debate, whether direct or indirect, that have put extra pressure on the Republicans, forcing them to acknowledge the minority as a more prominent contender.  The issue of unemployment benefits has often been seen as one that displays party polarization, but this discharge petition has the capacity to be signed enough to send it through to a House vote.

Unit 3 Current Events Post - Wolf vs. Corbett on the Path to Reelection

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/02/wolf_posts_double-digit_lead_o.html

A Democratic businessman from York County named Tom Wolf was recently noted to be near the front of the Pennsylvania governor election race.  It is believed that Wolf will be the frontrunner in the race against current governor Tom Corbett, a Republican.  In a recent Franklin & Marshall College poll, Tom Wolf drew 36 percent support.  He also received 44 percent support from his own party, with only 3 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion of him.

Tom Wolf has been recently very intelligent about his race toward the governor's mansion, beginning his political campaign in the form of advertising earlier than his opponents.  I personally have seen a few of these ads, and they have not only made people aware of the reelection on the horizon, but have pointed out his strengths.  With the slogan "A Different Kind of Leader," he successfully draws his audience in by saying that he is ready for positive change in PA.  These ads are persuasive and capture the attention of the viewer, making them a great move on Wolf's part in order to become the frontrunner in the reelection.  Wolf's campaigning proves that he is taking advantage of the two-party system; his definite opponent Corbett is a Republican, and if people are unhappy with what he has done while in office, they will automatically be drawn to the fact that Wolf is a Democrat, which generally means that he will make some decisions that oppose Corbett's.  Tom Wolf realizes that it can be difficult to run against the incumbent candidate, and in turn he has begun to make some very smart moves in his campaign.

Unit 2 Current Events Post - New Bill on the Table in Kansas

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/

There is a new bill circulating around the Kansas House of Representatives that is based on the premise that heterosexuals are experiencing discrimination from homosexuals.  As conservative Rush Limbaugh puts it, heterosexuals are "under assault by the 2 to 5 percent that are homosexual."  This new bill would entitle businesses and individuals to refuse service, accommodations, interactions, and more to anyone who identifies themselves as having a connection with a gay marriage or similar arrangement.

Kansas lies on the right side of the political spectrum.  It is labeled as a red state, meaning that the majority of people who reside there are conservatives, and its representatives are mostly Republican.  This bill makes sense in the aspect that it is in accordance with the beliefs of Staunch Republicans and other political typology groups that identify with the Republican party.  But the bill brings up some of the core American values.  The issue of equality is extremely closely connected to the bill: is it a proper display of equality in America to deny services to specific citizens?  The bill also questions the definition of liberty: who should be entitled to complete economic and cultural freedom?  Some of stated that this bill is a modern version of Jim Crow laws; if the bill can deny services to gays, it may end up being used as an excuse to keep gays from voting in the state of Kansas, therefore increasing the success of the Republican party.

In a way, Kansas is ignoring public opinion results.  Public opinion polls have recently suggested that the public's views on gay rights is shifting in the favor of gay equality.  In this sense, Kansas' House of Representatives is moving in the opposite direction of national public opinion.

This bill is the new foundation for a gay equality argument that has the potential to be long-lived.  The Kansas House of Representatives is fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and it will be interesting to see if Republicans will be willing to openly oppose this discriminatory bill, even if they are against gay marriage and the gay rights movement.

Unit 1 Current Events Post - The Minimum Wage Debate

http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-minimum-wage-debate-biz-0202-20140202,0,7595101.story

The minimum wage debate has been a continuous topic of debate for years. President Obama is a supporter of raising the federal minimum wage to as much as $10.10 an hour from the current minimum wage of $7.25.  The arguments between supporters of the raising of minimum wage and the idea's opponents can mostly be related to federalism and the United States Constitution.

Some people may use Constitutional arguments to their advantage in this debate.  Many resort to the Elastic Clause, which is commonly referred to within debates involving the creation of new laws or standards.  The Elastic Clause is nicknamed the "necessary and proper" clause because it states that Congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary for the continued success of the country. A posing question is: Is the raising of the minimum wage in this country necessary for the betterment of the economy?
Another part of the Constitution that provides an argument for opponents is the tenth amendment, which basically states that any powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states.  Many people may argue that since the Constitution does not explicitly outline its control over small or local businesses--the majority of what would be affected by a raise in federal minimum wage--this power should be a reserved power, meaning that the issue should be decided upon within the states.

The minimum wage debate is an example of implied preemption, which is a concept of federalism that states that if state law differs from federal law, federal law automatically takes precedence.  In the case of minimum wage, the higher wage takes effect.  For example, workers in Illinois earn a minimum wage of $8.25 as decided upon by the state; since their state's wage is higher than the federal rate of $7.25, they can use it above the federal wage.  However, states that believe in keeping a lower wage for workers would be forced by federal law to adjust their minimum wage according to the new law, due to the concept of implied preemption.

Small businesses believe, according to the article above, that "government shouldn't be weighing in on wages in the private sector."  This stance can be closely compared to that of the Anti-federalists of the late 1700s.  Small and local businesses are afraid to see the federal government taking too much control over what they believe is a personal issue.  They do not want to be held to a higher minimum wage under the force of the federal government.  This was the opinion of the Anti-federalists; they feared that the federal system would become much too controlling and would take away the individual rights of the states.  

The main question of the minimum wage debate, when relating it to United States federalism, is: When should the federal government draw the line when it comes to their encroachment of powers reserved to the states?  This question is not only asked today but was debated when Federalists and Anti-federalists fought over the future of American government.  Thus, the minimum wage debate rages on.